From ...
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!news01.chello.se!news01.chello.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail
From: Erik Naggum
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.lisp,comp.object,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Rainer Joswig a sample of the con artists the Common Lisp community produces ( Re: thank you all, but...)
Date: 12 Aug 2002 16:45:11 +0000
Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway
Lines: 266
Message-ID: <3238159511831086@naggum.no>
References: <3D4C06D2.2050004@pontos.net> <3D4D636B.4050602@aon.at> <3D4D7B6C.8080709@pontos.net> <3D503164.6000002@pontos.net> <87bs8fac8c.fsf@web.de> <49e4lucsi4ok5cttnldukgesti3cajvob9@4ax.com> <98d6lukhlf7vnnfu9e7kfe5dab5ce2352l@4ax.com> <2so7lu447h7jgdsf8rksji5rfeuv36idob@4ax.com> <3D55BBE1.B37ECAEA@dls.net> <5Wj59.58461$7n5.9889@sccrnsc01> <3D55D0BD.B88364F2@dls.net> <3238063211884969@naggum.no> <3238091419190626@naggum.no> <0XE59.66982$UU1.11953@sccrnsc03> <3238122656404186@naggum.no> <1wP59.71452$nF5.17704@sccrnsc02>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 1029170714 27136 193.71.199.50 (12 Aug 2002 16:45:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@KPNQwest.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Aug 2002 16:45:14 GMT
Mail-Copies-To: never
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
X-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:45:14 MET DST (news01.chello.no)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.smalltalk:25177 comp.lang.lisp:37809 comp.object:45445 comp.software-eng:12846
* "peter_douglass"
| > | I still do not believe I am responsible for the demise of c.l.l.
|
| > Why do you exaggerate to something you would obviously not
| > responsible for in order to avoid accepting responsiblity for
| > what you have done? You have made things worse, not better.
| > /Please/ try to understand that you are part of the problem you
| > complain about.
|
| I have merely responded to your own comments.
This is a strong hint that you have relieved yourself of responsibility for
what you do. It is a pretty classic cop-out at that.
| Here is what you said. «You have whined ... It is the whining losers who
| destroy a newsgroup by making it acceptable to whine about the atmosphere.»
| If the "[whining] losers" *destroy* a newsgroup, doesn't that mean that they
| are responsible for its demise? If they are [responsible] collectively, are
| they not also responsible individually?
No. You have to be pretty insane to think that the cumulative effect of
hundreds of whining losers over many years makes any one whining loser
individually responsible for the demise of a whole newsgroup. So of course
you are able to weasel out of responsibility by arguing that you believe you
are not individually responsible for the demise of the newsgroup, /therefore/
the whining losers are not collectively, cumulatively responsible, either.
It is pretty clear that you are quite intelligent when you can conjure up so
much idiocy and still make it appear to stick together. My hat's off to
your brilliance. You are, however, looking increasingly mentally unstable
because of the distance from your carefully constructed alternate universe
and the real world.
| You accuse me of exaggerating, but what I have done is respond precisely to
| what is intimated by your post.
No. You have added a premise of your own making. Again, you are shirking
from the responsibility of your own additional premise.
| At this point, I am merely responding to points that you raise. There is
| nothing pathological about that.
Dodging responsibility, again.
| > You are so certain that you are right
|
| Are you certain that you are right?
No, but I try to think about things, including what lunatics like you say.
I try to add additional reasons for some phenomenon that appear to have more
power of explanation than your sole reason. I am opposed to your one and
only true reason. That does not mean I have a one and only true reason.
But this is indicative of how you fail to think about what you read and only
consider this is stupid game. In fact, you are proving to be a troll.
| You have only repeated yourself, and have not provided anything new for my
| mind to work with.
I doubt that it would work on anything at this time.
| You claimed that the only problem with c.l.l. lies with "outsiders".
NO, I did not claim that. Please quit introducing your own interpretation.
| Nevertheless, you have accussed me of _contributing_ to the destruction of a
| newsgroup. I fail to see how a collectivity may be held responsible, yet an
| individual contributor not.
I am amazed at your rhetorical skills when you need to avoid responsibility
for your own actions. It is pretty impressive, actually.
You are obviously responsible for your part, but not the whole. Does this
seem unreasonable to you? Would you like to clarify what you mean by not
being responsible for anything you do, only "responding" to other people?
| I guess my question was, why does it happen to c.l.l. as opposed to other
| newsgroups?
Again, and for the umpteenth time: because whining losers find that it is
acceptable to whine in comp.lang.lisp, and they find others who will back
them up, either publicly or by mail, and instead of doing something to
improve the situation, they feel that they can just whine about the behavior
of others. This is part of the public sentiment about comp.lang.lisp that
has formed over many years by people like you who fail to realize their own
role in the development. All of your rhetorics is intended to dodge the
responsibility for your own actions. I find it rather alarming that anyone
can be so dead set on blaming other people for his own actions, but that is
precisely what makes a troll.
| In other words, the answer you provide above, doesn't answer the question of
| why c.l.l. _as opposed to_ other newgroups.
Yes, it does. Think about it.
| I did not arrive at my opinions based upon prejudice, but upon observation.
Not solely. You are the kind of person who focuses on negatives and forms
long-term judgmental opinions about other people based on your
"observations". More sane people will observe the exact same events and
come out with different conclusions. This is what you are unwilling to
accept.
| Do you believe that it is appropriate to treat potential customers rudely
| when they seek pointers to free literature?
This is such a situation. You observe and choose to filter and ignore such
that it leads you to a conclusion that was foretold. It was /not/ because
he asked for "free literature" that was treated the way he was. Yes, he did
that, too, but that did not cause the reactions. His hostility towards
those who tried to help him and his utter disrespect for other people cause
the reactions. Since you are obviously on the "side" of the whining losers,
being one of them, you do not see that whining losers do anything wrong.
> Trivially so: People who stay manage to get along.
| Then your aim is not to get along with the outside world, but only amonst
| yourselves?
No. Please engage your brain and arrive at a more likely conclusion.
| In other newsgroups, whining is often ignored.
That could be a contributory reason. Perhaps oldtimers in comp.lang.lisp
are just more sensitive to the kinds of unfair attacks that the whining
losers levy against them by implication and destructive generalizations.
Also, there is a /lot/ of good free Common Lisp tools and compilers and
environments, yet the whining losers always argue that they cannot even
learn and play with Common Lisp because someone is charging many kilobucks
for development environments. Those of us who know the vendors also know
that they are more than willing to help people with evaluation licenses, but
those who just come to whine never even bother to ask them.
| But there is *other* whining in c.l.l. that is extremely voluminous, yet you
| seem to find very acceptable, and that is your own whining about others.
What is your problem with this? You argue all the time about your own lack
of responsibility because you are only responding to me. So either you
accept responsibility for your own behavior or you give me the right to
"respond" to you and others like you, too.
| Someone makes a two line comment, and you respond with a 3 page diatribe,
| and you continue to whine about the same issues over and over, post after
| post.
You just told me that your power of objective observation is restricted to
what you already believe. Was that intentional on your part?
| I am not dodging responsibility. I am asking you to take responsibility for
| your own actions, which are considerably more significant to c.l.l. than my
| own.
Oh, but I am responsible for my own actions, but that does not mean that I
am responsible for what you want to impute to me. When you are responsible
for your own actions, you do not appreciate the unfair exaggerations that
come from hateful people who believe that other people are just as unwilling
to accept responsibility as they are, and therefore attack others for things
they have not done, just to push harder and try to make someone look evil by
blaming them for things that others do, usually themselves. So, while you
try to blame me for your own actions, I reject that because I much prefer to
be responsible only for myself. You should try to understand this, but I
guess you will be unable to appreciate what false accusations means to
someone who /does/ take responsibility for his own actions and does not
spend all this time dodging it.
| The question raised by your comment, and to which I resonded, is whether I
| have based my opinion of c.l.l. upon observations of unwarranted hostility,
| or whether "warranted" hostility.
You have undoubtedly observed it. Look, is reasoning this difficult for
you? It is not what you have observed that is under scrutiny here. It is
what you have /ignored/, and which would change your conclusions if you
stopped ignoring them and paid attention to information that is readily
available to you, but which you ignore /because/ you want to exonerate the
whining losers and yourself in particular.
| If I am accused, I am entitled to make my case. If you do not want me to
| make such a case, then don't make the accusation.
Well, gee. You are the one accusing people, here. Do you even forget that
you out and /attacked/ people with vague and generalized insults? Are you
so unable to realize your own role that you think /you/ are the victim of
unfair treatment? If so, I am just in /awe/ of your intellect. It takes
serious mental prowess to construct an alternative universe to live in that
maintains sufficient internal consistency not to break down.
| I am only responding to your posts, and the posts of others. If you don't
| like what I have to say, then don't bother responding. Just ignore me.
| Then there will be nothing for me to respond to.
Not responsible for your own actions, again. Blaming the victims of /your/
attacks for responding to you is pretty devious. Congratulations! You must
feel really good about yourself when you think you will succeed in blaming
those you unfairly accuse of doing what /you/ do.
| The articles are all archived. If it is necessary, we can look them up.
| There is no need to rely upon memory.
Heed your own advice.
| I don't blame anyone for my behavior. On the other hand, I don't think it
| is particularly "bad". We obviously disagree about this.
The inability of someone who does wrong to accept that he does wrong is what
causes most of the evil in this world.
| > You make things worse, not better.
|
| We obviously have differing opinions about what is worse and what is better.
| IMHO, you make things worse, not better. By pretending that all hostility
| on the part of c.l.l. is merely a justified reaction to provocations, you
| close your eyes to the fact that regulars of c.l.l. may in fact be
| responsible.
But what /is/ your gripe with this? You pretend that your own hostility and
continued attacks are only justified reactions to what is actually a /defense/
against your false accusations. People have to stop defending themselves
from your unfair attacks before you will stop attacking them further. This
is certainly a behavior that should be treated by psychiatrists.
| Why do you try to switch attention away from *yourself*.
And what, precisely, does this have to do with me? You come here to attack
people and accuse them unfairly of wrongdoing, refuse to listen to the
alternative explanations, refuse to listen to /anything/, in fact, and
require that people stop defending themselves from your unfair attacks
before you stop your unfair attacks. When did this start to be about /me/?
| I have answered all of the issues that you have raised. Please answer the
| issues I raise.
That you believe you have is simply astonishing.
| I accept full responsibility for my actions. You seem to want to make
| psychological evaluations rather than discuss issues.
There is something wrong with your psychology. It clouds the issues.
| You may form whatever opinion you wish of me. It doesn't bother me, as I do
| not respect your abilities in this area.
Of course you don't. Respect for other people is /precisely/ what you lack.
| By using such McCarthyite, whispering campaign techniques, when you know or
| should know the accusation is false, you demonstrate that you care neither
| for truth, nor for exposing actual racism.
And what, precisely, was it that you had against false accusations? Is it
only when others make them against you that you react to them, while you are
allowed to false accuse others of just about anything? Hypocrite!
| People like you who inject the issue of racism into a discussion when they
| know or should know that the charge they make is untrue, truly show a lack
| of ethical standards.
I only showed you how you appear to other people. Deal with it. Perhaps
you should consider your own behavior and modify it so the accusations you
consider false disappear? After all, /you/ think that false accusing other
people of evils they do not commit will cause them to rethink what they do
and change their behavior. Why does this tactic not work on yourself when
you use it against others? Could it be because you are stark raving mad?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.